AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (2) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal of the registration of the firm. That form is a forged one. In order to fasten responsibility for his false accounts and also liability to Income Tax on P. W. l and the complainant, the accused probably antedated some renewal form, signatures on which of the complainant and P. W. 1 may have been obtained by the accused in 1949 or 195D before the partners fell out: he wanted to cheat all concerned. The accused thus committed offences under Sections 467, 471 and 420, I. P. C. 2. In the complaint in P. R. C. No. 2 of 1953 it was alleged 'inter alia': "The accused wanted to alter the accounts so that certain amounts representing profits may appear as borrowings from the company, the alleged persons advanced being the kith and kin of the accused." Besides, taking advantage of the circumstance that the accused happened to be the president of the Marketing Society, he diverted the funds illegally and manipulated the accounts in order to make it appear that the amounts owing to the Marketing Society were due to his relations and others and got the manipulated accounts filed before the Income Tax Officer. "Incidentally by making his relations appear as cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted criminal breach of trust and cheated the firm in respect of the amounts involved in three cheques, the first accused filed a suit against the complainant, P. W. 1 and the second accused in O. S. No. 198 of 1951, Sub Court, Guntur, in order to recover Rs. 20,000 from the complainant. That suit was admittedly filed after, according to the complainant, the accused had committed offences under Sections 409 and 420, I. P. C. These offences were not committed in connection with any proceeding in any Court, and, it is impossible to understand why any complaint by the Sub Judge is necessary. 6. So far as P. R. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1953 are concerned, the question whether a complaint by the Income Tax Officer is necessary or not depends upon whether he is a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal P. C. In respect of the objection taken before the Magistrate that a complaint by the Deputy Registrar was necessary, no attempt was made to substantiate that objection because it is impossible to say that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal P. C. 7. Mr. Jayaranja Aiyar the learned advocate for the petitioner argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Officer the powers of a Civil Court when trying a suit to enforce the attendance of any person and to examine him on oath. He has also the power to compel the production of documents and to issue commissions for the examination of witnesses. An Income Tax Officer is therefore a Court within the meaning of the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act, the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code all form part of one series, and, it is perfectly legitimate to transfer to the Criminal Procedure Code the definition of the word "Court" appearing in the Evidence Act. 10. In -- 'Atchayya v. Gangayya', 15 Mad 138 (A), the meaning of the word "Court" was examined. On page 148 Parker J. observed: "The word 'Court' in Section 195 is used strictly with reference to offence of fabrication of evidence and of documents used in evidence, and, therefore, it seems not unreasonable to hold that the term is used -- like the term 'evidence' -- in the same sense as in the Indian Evidence Act." 11. It seems to me that there is a fallacy in this reasoning of Mr. Jayarama Aiyar. No doubt when we have to ascertain what a particular word used in a statute means, as also the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly contemplates the existence of Courts constituted under other laws, and the Legislature has seen fit to use the general expression 'Court' in preference to the more restricted description 'court of justice'. A Sub-Registrar is legally authorised to take evidence under Part VIII of the Indian Registration Act for the purpose of satisfying himself upon certain points, and he is, therefore, when acting under Section 41, Act III of 1877, a 'Court' within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act." 15. On this decision the observation may be made that when acting under Section 41(2) a Registrar has to decide certain questions substantially in the same manner in which an ordinary civil Court decides the question. The nature of the duties he performs under Section 41(2) bears a very close analogy to the nature of the duties discharged by an ordinary civil Court. 16. In -- 'Queen Empress v. Subba', 11 Mad 3 (C), it was held that a Sub-Registrar acting under Section 34 of the Registration Act of 1877 was not a "Court". In -- 'Queen Empress v. Vythilinga', 11 Mad 500 (D) it was held that the sanction of the Sub-Registrar was not necessary in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for giving false evidence, whereas sanction is required if the evidence is given, say for example, before a Magistrate or a Sub Judge. It seems to me that the purpose of these provisions in Section 195 are that "when false evidence is alleged to be given on oath, the prosecution shall not proceed without a sanction, and that the Code intends, to make no distinction whatever between different cases provided that the oath may properly be administered and that the evidence may be taken." 19. In--'Bashambar Nath v. Amolak Ram Amin-chand & Co.', AIR 1933 Lah 214 (H), it was held that an Income Tax Officer is a "tribunal" within the meaning of Section 135(2), Civil Procedure Code and that a person who was on his way to appear before the Income Tax Officer in compliance with a notice issued to him under Section 23 (2) of the Income Tax Act was then exempt from arrest. 20. In respect of the first two of these decisions I would make two observations: One is that they were given under the Income Tax Act, 1836, and that the scheme of that Act is entirely different from the scheme of the present Act. The other is that even if it can be properly held that an officer belonging to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath, to compel the production of documents and also the power to issue commissions. From the decision of the Income Tax Officer a right of appeal is provided for under Section 30 of the Act. He has therefore not merely the formal trappings but also the real authority and duties of a Court. 23. There are difficulties in this reasoning. To have the power to compel witnesses to appear and to examine them on oath, to have the power to compel the production of documents and to have the power to issue commissions, are not sufficient to constitute the officer on whom such powers are conferred into a "Court". Again, the fact that a right of appeal is provided for is not conclusive either. From various orders, which are undoubtedly administrative in their character, appeals are provided for in numerous statutes. That the decision which the officer may give may affect a civil right is again not decisive. One cannot do better than refer to the oft-quoted case reported in --'Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation', 1931 AC 275 (J). their Lordships observed: "In that connection it may be usef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as assessment committees, guardians committees, the Court of referees constituted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to decide claims made on the insurance funds...." When dealing with an application for the registration of a firm the Income Tax Officer is merely discharging a duty incidental to his main function of ascertaining what Income Tax the individuals before him are liable to pay and that is clearly an administrative function. Section 37, Income Tax Act, concludes with these words: "Any proceeding before an Income Tax Officer, under this Chapter shall be deemed to be a 'judicial proceeding' within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code." It would have been needless to enact this provision unless the Legislature considered that but for such provision the proceedings before the Income Tax Officer would not be judicial proceedings. Even more this provision definitely implies that the proceedings before the Income Tax Officer are not judicial proceedings except for the purposes specified. The effect of the provision is to make it plain that if a person gives false evidence or fabricates fal....